Spear v. State

The trial court was not required to inquire about the defendant's financial circumstances for purpose of appointing counsel where hired counsel represented defendant at arraignment and throughout proceedings below.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a bench trial in the State Court of Fulton County, John Wesley Spear was found guilty of carrying a concealed weapon and carrying a weapon without a permit, which charges arose after Spear was detained by Atlanta Police Officer M. Cotter for investigative purposes because he matched the description of the perpetrator of a burglary committed minutes earlier a few blocks away. He appeals pro se from the judgment of the court. Finding his claims of error to be without merit, we affirm. 1. Spear contends that, at the time of trial, he was indigent and should have been appointed counsel. Thus, he claims the trial court erred by failing to comply with Uniform Superior Court Rule 30.2, which states in pertinent part that, Before arraignment the court shall inquire whether the accused is represented by counsel and, if not, inquire into the defendant’s desires and financial circumstances. If the defendant desires an attorney and is indigent, the court shall authorize the immediate appointment of counsel. However, the record before us contains a notice of appearance filed by attorney Billy Spruell, reflecting that he was retained as Spear’s counsel of record in this case. At the time of arraignment and throughout the proceedings in the court below, Mr. Spruell represented Spear. Pertinently, Rule 30.2 also states,

Upon arraignment, the attorney, if any, who announces for or on behalf of an accused, or who is entered as counsel of record, shall represent the accused in that case throughout the trial, unless other counsel and the defendant notify the judge prior to trial that such other counsel represents the accused and is ready to proceed, or counsel is otherwise relieved by the judge. No notification as to problems with retained representation having been made to the trial court, that court did not err in failing to inquire as to Spear’s financial circumstances for purposes of appointment of counsel.

Spear v. State

The trial court was not required to inquire about the defendant's financial circumstances for purpose of appointing counsel where hired counsel represented defendant at arraignment and throughout proceedings below.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report